Saarni S I, Gylling H A
National Public Health Institute, Helsinki, Finland.
J Med Ethics. 2004 Apr;30(2):171-5. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.003145.
"Evidence based medicine" (EBM) is often seen as a scientific tool for quality improvement, even though its application requires the combination of scientific facts with value judgments and the costing of different treatments. How this is done depends on whether we approach the problem from the perspective of individual patients, doctors, or public health administrators. Evidence based medicine exerts a fundamental influence on certain key aspects of medical professionalism. Since, when clinical practice guidelines are created, costs affect the content of EBM, EBM inevitably becomes a form of rationing and adopts a public health point of view. This challenges traditional professionalism in much the same way as managed care has done in the US. Here we chart some of these major philosophical issues and show why simple solutions cannot be found. The profession needs to pay more attention to different uses of EBM in order to preserve the good aspects of professionalism.
“循证医学”(EBM)常被视为提高医疗质量的科学工具,尽管其应用需要将科学事实与价值判断以及不同治疗方法的成本核算相结合。如何做到这一点取决于我们是从个体患者、医生还是公共卫生管理者的角度来处理这个问题。循证医学对医学职业精神的某些关键方面产生了根本性影响。由于在制定临床实践指南时,成本会影响循证医学的内容,循证医学不可避免地成为一种资源分配形式,并采用了公共卫生视角。这与美国的管理式医疗一样,在很大程度上对传统职业精神构成了挑战。在这里,我们梳理其中一些主要的哲学问题,并说明为何找不到简单的解决办法。为了保留职业精神的优点,该行业需要更多地关注循证医学的不同用途。